User talk:Lupo

I'm extremely busy off-Wikipedia these days. I may or may not answer promptly, or I may not answer at all. Lupo

2024

Tuesday

12

November

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

Suzanne Bing

Very nice article! Interesting too. It was a great idea to contact professor Donahue. David Sneek 09:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (p.s.: I had my user space deleted some time ago, when I thought about quitting wikipedia. But I returned.)

Natallia Tsylinskaya - db-bio

Hi there.

You recently removed my {{db-bio}} tag from Natallia Tsylinskaya. I completely agree with your decision to remove it now that the article has been expanded, however when I added the tag the article only said: "Natallia Tsylinskaya (born 30 August 1975 in Minsk Belarus)". Based on the information at the time, it appeared to just be a random article about no-one in particular. Your edit summary when you removed the tag said "Don't be so quick with db-bio!".

My question is this. If I come across a new article with practically no content about someone I've never heard of, should I mark it as {{db-bio}} or should I wait and see what happens? I'm trying to be bold in helping out, but I don't want to mess up to badly so I would appreciate any advice.

Thanks, Jibbles | Talk 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have no idea what the hell happened, but whatever you did, you have my full support. I know we saw a bit differently, but whatever these editors are doing, they do not speak for me. About the template itself; there is nothing wrong that you did. You put a notice that this template was disputed and kindly asked folks to use this template less ofter while we sort it out. I am still not sure where exactly to find the pre-1973 date information, but i'll keep looking. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer on your talk page. Lupo 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC junk

RFC looks all nasty. You look to be in the right anyways about the copyright tag for USSR. Its a big mess. It'd be nice if you could continue to help resolve it. Kevin_b_er 02:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See my answer to ZScout370. Lupo 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Millitary rank insignia copyrights

Hey, I am pretty certain all military rank insignias are in pd (for combattant identification) as per internatinal treaties (such as the Geniva Convention). However I am not certain exactly where this info is presented. It would be nice to cite this. Any ideas? --Cat out 21:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea. But why should "combattant identification" have anything to do with copyright? Lupo 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked for this myself and I could not find it in the Conventions itself. IMHO, we should tag the images with the licenses of the appropriate nations. 205.153.157.46 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (Zscout370 logged out)

PD-ItalyGov and EU Harmonisation of Copyrights

Hello Lupo, could you have a look at this new template? It suggests that all works created by the Italian government etc. have entered the public domain after 20 years. I suppose the EU directive on copyright harmonisation restored all these copyrights. Cheers, --Wikipeder 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Swiss peasant war of 1653, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Commons:Licensing#Italy

Hello Lupo, sorry to bug you again—if you've got some time to spare, can you have a look at the Commons' text on Italian copyright? We really need some expert's comment there. Thanks, --Wikipeder 08:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a lengthy comment at commons:Template talk:PD-Italy. Lupo 10:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time. Great analysis and overview. --Wikipeder 11:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You made me smile. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Chicago Picasso ruling

Hi! You guessed right—I got the Letter Edged in Black ruling from Lexis, that's why I was unsure about the copyright status. By posting this case at wikipedia I think that I have already broken the Lexis terms of use, however, I am sure that this material is also available at many public libraries—in which case, if it is PD, then I would be happy to keep it if it were reformatted as you described. I noticed that wikisource has a few district court rulings, so maybe this one could go there too? —JeremyA 03:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Case notes

Hi Lupo! I have created User:Lupo/886 F. Supp. 1120 and User:Lupo/No. 95 Civ. 2144(JGK). Are these what you were after? (There were 11 documents for the second case, but I think that this is the one that you asked for) —JeremyA 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Information.

Hello,

A few years ago, you created the Montreux Jazz Festival. According to that article, a band known as Jazzmatazz is listed as a regular participant at the event. What can you tell me about this band? I would like to create an article on them. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you try Google? I would have to search for info on them, too. Lupo 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, I checked before asking you because I knew that Guru (rapper) had several recordings of that name (see Jazzmatazz). However, I was under the impression that you were referring to a jazz quartet that included Brian Hopper of Soft Machine fame; that group is referenced here. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Need help on copyright stuff

Hello, I need to consult you on some lengthy matter (hopefully not as lengthy as PD-Soviet).

See, I got this encyclopedia published in Lithuania in 1933-1943 and I wonder if it is in PD. I really doubt if there were any laws on copyright in those times. And I don't have any way to check. But I have this modern law. It is a very bad translation, but at the very end it states:

1. This Law shall apply to authors and owners of related rights if at the moment of the entry into force thereof the term of protection of their rights in literary, scientific and artistic works or objects of related rights, which were effective before the entry into force of this Law, has not expired, except the case specified in paragraph 2 of this Article.

Lithuanian version is clearer and it says that this law is effective only if the rights did not expire under previous laws. So I go down the rabbit hole and dig up earlier law. There again, Article 72 says the same thing. So I dig deeper, and I get this thing. There are a couple interesting articles:

Article 525. Copyright in Periodicals and other Publications: Copyright in scientific collections, encyclopaedic dictionaries, journals or other collections as a whole shall be enjoyed by the persons who publish them on their own or through one of the publishing houses.

Now, the Lithuanian Encyclopedia says that it is published by "Spaudos Fondas" with help of... It is printed in Varpas publishing house, edited by a bunch of people, and written by even bigger. So, in my interpretation, "encyclopaedic dictionaries" = "encyclopaedia" and the person who published it is "Spaudos Fondas," which is a legal entity.

Article 538. Term of Copyright of Legal Persons: The legal person shall enjoy copyright for fifty years after the work has been made available to the public.

That means the encyclopeadia is in PD since 1993. Regretfully, no earlier law is available. What do you think? Could I draw such conclusion? Background note: in 1945 Lithuania was occupied by the Soviet Union. In 1990 it declared independence. Renata 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not see that you are busy these days, but in case you decide to reply, here is a summary of coryright status in Lithuania. Renata 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You really do save the complicated questions for me, don't you? All right, here's my personal opinion on this:

Let's first look at modern Lithuanian copyright law (link to PDF at UNESCO, same content as your modern law link). First, you're right that it applied only to works still copyrighted at the date the law became effective. (Annex, Aritcle 2, "Transitional Provisions", paragraph 1.) The modern law has a general copyright term of 70 years, as did the previous law. It seems the 2003 changes concerned mainly audiovisual works, broadcasters' rights, and such. For a work like an encyclopedia, its provisions are the same as the previous law from 1999, which also had a term of 70 years.

An encyclopedia is a collection. Regarding collections, the situation is similar to Russia (compare e.g. this discussion at the Russian Wikipedia concerning the Great Soviet Encyclopedia—they only consider those entries published anonymously before 1954 to be PD in Russia, which is consistent with my analysis of PD-USSR; also see ru:Википедия:Авторские права, their official usage guidelines): the publisher of the encyclopedia has a copyright on the collection as a whole, with a term of 70 years since publication. The authors of the individual encyclopedia entries also have a copyright on their text. If their name is indicated, the term is 70 years p.m.a., if no name is given with an article, the term is 70 years since publication, i.e. the same as for the collection. (On the analogous situation in Russia, see also the case Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., which says the same concerning newspapers (the collection) and journalists (authors of individual articles).)

The earlier law of 1999 is identical in that respect and also has a copyright term of 70 years. I don't know when it entered in force, but I would guess with its publication on September 1, 1999. It also applied only to works still copyrighted on that date. Since copyrights expire at the end of the year, it therefore applied to all works still copyrighted on January 1, 1999.

The previous law of 1994 also is similar (see §§524, 527), albeit a bit unclear. The copyright term was 50 years since publication for the collection (if we assume—and I think that assumption is safe—that an encyclopedia was published not by a real person but a company, i.e. a legal person, §§525, 538, or that the individual authors were employed by the publisher, §523), and 50 years p.m.a. for entries written by known authors and again 50 years since publication for anonymously published encyclopedia entries (§536). Again, I think the law became effective with its publication on August 1, 1994, but unfortunately the English version does not spell out the transitional provisions. Maybe you can find something in the Lithuanian version (which I can't read)?

Lithuania joined the Berne Convention on December 14, 1994, i.e. after that 1994 law became effective, and thus any works copyrighted by the 1994 law became copyrighted in other Berne countries, too. Lithuania has never been a member of the UCC, so we can ignore any complications that might arise from that.

Going back to earlier laws, we enter the era of Soviet occupation and thus Soviet law, i.e. 25 years p.m.a. since 1973 and before 15 years p.m.a since the 1960s (I'm too lazy to look up the exact year), and I don't know about earlier laws.

That leaves us with the following:

For this particular encyclopedia:

• Entries published without author are certainly and assuming a worst-case scenario in the public domain in Lithuania if published before 1949 (1999 - 50), and public domain in other Berne countries if published before 1944 (1994 - 50). Hence such entries are PD world-wide.
• Entries published with an author's name: the same cut-off years apply, but this time for the author's death. I.e. articles of authors who died before 1944 are in the public domain in Lithuania and all Berne countries.

Note: if there's just a list of names on the front pages of the encyclopedia, you should look closely whether that's authors' names or whether that's some kind of editorial board supervising the compilation of the encyclopedia. I think (but I'm not sure) that unless the author of a particular entry is clearly indicated, we may consider it anonymous.

The worst-case scenario mentioned is that the 1994 law would've been retroactive for a period of 50 years, like the Russian law of 1993.

In general, we get the rule for Lithuania that Lithuanian works of authors who died before 1944 are PD world-wide. (And before 1949, are PD in Lithuania. That's because such works surely were not subject to the term extension from 50 to 70 years in 1999.)

This is again under the worst-case assumption. I do not know whether works published in Lithuania during the Soviet occupation would be Soviet works and would thus need to be covered by PD-USSR. But with a 1944 cut-off date; that question becomes immaterial anyway as we simply skip this whole period. It's also really futile to argue over the copyright situation in an occupied country in the middle of a war, a country moreover that was a battlefield between German and Soviet troops and occupied alternatingly by both.

As always, IANAL, it's my personal take on this, etc. pp. HTH. Lupo 08:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS.: In §525 of the 1994 law, the crucial text is "as a whole". The publisher of the compilation only gets a copyright on the compilation "as a whole"; the copyright of the text of the individual entries remains with the authors. The publisher has only a copyright on the particular selection and presentation (layout) of the entries, but not on the entries themselves. See again the Itar-TASS v. Russian Kurier case, where exactly this was a central point (albeit in Russian law). The later editions (at least, the English translations) of the Lithuanian copyright law make that clearer. Lupo 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It really explains a lot of things. See, I misinterpreted "as a whole" thing. Now just a couple more headaches :)

1. Same law of 1994 para 522 & 537 talks about joint authorship. Does this apply?
2. That 1994 law does not state transitional provisions. I will try to dig deeper and see, but I doubt :( So shoul we assume that it was retroactive? and disregard anything that was happening in 1973?
3. PD-USSR does not apply to Lithuania; remember the 3 post-soviet countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) that do not acknowledge USSR treaties? Also, in 1944 Lithuania was not part of the Soviet Union anyway...

Quick background on LE (Lithuanian Encyclopeadia): longer entries have authors indicated clearly. It list something like 100 authors. It also has editorial board of ca. 10 people. It also very clearly says that it is published by Spaudos Fondas (translation would be something like "Press Fund"), a company.

And later I will have another question for you. Hopefully that won't be that complicated. Renata 11:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this step by step.

1. "Joint authorship" does IMO not apply in general, only for entries where several authors would be mentioned. I think it's safe to assume that one entry was written by a single person, unless indicated otherwise. Since the law explicitly distinguishes among "collections" and "joint works", I think such an interpretation is warranted.
2. What happened in 1973 in Lithuania? AFAIK, 1973 only enters the picture if you consider Soviet copyright law, and that could only be if the 1994 Lithuanian law was not retroactive (and then you'd first have to sort out your point #3, see below.) If Soviet law applied pre-1990 (which raises the question of what laws applied 1990-1994...) then you'd also have to consider Soufron's comment that we must treat Soviet works as having been published simultaneously in all CIS nations (see commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet, point 4 of my initial presentation of my reasoning). A simultaneously published work would need to be PD in all the CIS countries to be PD in other "Berne" countries or the U.S. That would mean that you had to apply something like commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet-revised, which in the best case brings you to a cut-off year of 1945 = 1995 - 50 (since the Russian copyright law of 1993 was retroactive), and in the worst case to 70 years p.m.a. So it's no use digging further, IMO.
   • Oops, my bad. You're right, Renata. Your point #3 (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estnia did not accept treaties concluded by the Soviets), and thus PD-USSR and that whole dreadful simultaneous publishing bit are irrelevant for these three states. They are not considered UCC members since 1973. So, if you can figure out which laws applied, digging further might actually give us a better (i.e., more recent) cut-off date. Lupo 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Does this also mean that Lithuania retroactively annulled Soviet legislation that was in force during the occupation? If Soviet copyright law did not apply pre-1990, then what law was in force? Or what law is considered to have been in force? I would be very surprised if the Lithuanian government didn't simply take over the previous Soviet copyright legislation, leaving it in force until they got around to writing their own law—without laws, it's a bit difficult to run a country. See also IIPA 2001 Special 301 Report: Lithuania, where they write "The history of copyright reform in Lithuania began in 1991. After regaining its independence from the Soviet Union, Lithuania amended its copyright and administrative law, albeit only slightly, in May 1994. These 1994 amendments updated its old Soviet-style Civil Code with two new chapters that adopted a general framework for a Berne-compatible law, ..."

Finally please note that my interpretation of "as a whole" is by analogy with Russian law, where that Itar-TASS v. Russian Kurier case provided this interpretation based on expert advice from Russian and American experts. I am not aware of any official interpretation of the phrase in Lithuanian, I am just making the (reasonable) guess that given the striking similarities, it is to be understood in the same sense as in the Russian copyright law. Lupo 12:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And in any case, I'd be interested to know what the Lithuanians' conclusions at Ar 1933 metais pradeta spausdinti lietuviska enciklopedija yra PD? and User talk:Dirgela are, if and when a conclusion is reached. And please also write the English article for Lietuviškoji enciklopedija (or maybe even better, for Lietuviškos enciklopedijos :-) BTW, the Lietuvių enciklopedija seems to have had the same editor. Lupo 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot that Lithuania is a EU member since 2004. It has thus implemented the 1993 EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (93/98/EEC) including the modifications of directive 2001/29/EC. §10(1) and §10(2) of 93/98/EEC made works that were protected in at least one EU member on July 1, 1995 copyrighted in all EU members, even in EU countries where they already had fallen into the public domain! (This annoying clause is the reason why many German WWII-era photographs are still copyrighted, even though their original copyright had already expired. See WP:PD#World War II images.) I do not know whether this clause affects Lithuania, who joined the EU only in 2004, long after this July 1, 1995 date. Two things to note:

1. On July 1, 1995, all Lithuanian works after the 1944 cut-off date I mentioned above for "Berne" countries were indeed copyrighted in the EU, with a term of 70 years.
2. If by joining the EU Lithuania also became subject to this §10(1,2), it would have had the effect of making all 1944 - 1949 works copyrighted again in Lithuania, subjecting them to a 70 year term, too. (Even if such works had been out of copyright in Lithuania before 2004!) In other words, the cut-off year within Lithuania would also be 1944.

I haven't found anything to that effect in the 2004 copyright law of Lithuania except the statement that "The Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Copyright and Related Rights is harmonised with the following legal acts of the European Union: ... 4) Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 ..." (Annex, Article 1). I do not know whether §10 of 93/98/EEC also applies to EU members who joined after July 1, 1995, or only to countries that already were EU members at that date. But it is some detail to consider, especially if you plan to use other 1944-1949 works on the Lithuanian Wikipedia. Lupo 14:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, note that I now think you're right on PD-USSR not being applicable. Soviet law may still have been in effect until 1994, though. That might give us a more recent cut-off date. Lupo 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one

Ok, I guess I need some time to read about stuff and to digest what you wrote above :) So can I ask you another question? I bought another encyclopeadia (yes, this weekend I went shopping for encyclopedias), published in Boston, MD in 1970-1978. Six volumes in total. There is no way on earth it's PD, and I know that. But my question is who owns the copyright? On the cover it clearly states: Copyright 197x Juozas Kapocius. All rights reserved. Juozas is a private person. Most articles have authors clearly stated. So who owns the copyright for the book? Does Juozas own copyrights to every article? Or, as the case in Lithuania, the individual articles are still copyrighted by their authors? (I really hope this time it will be less mess ;]) Renata 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be the Encyclopedia Lithuania, wouldn't it? The 36-volume Lietuvių enciklopedija was published earlier (but also in Boston, and also by Juozas Kapočius). It's definitely time to start an article on Lithuanian encyclopedias! Since it was first published in Boston, USA, we need to look at U.S. copyright law. Let's first look at the pre-1978 situation, since most of this encyclopedia was published before that year.

1. Section 3 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1909 says that the copyright owner of a "composite work" held the copyright on all individual parts. If, however, certain parts already had been copyrighted and then were incorporated into the composite work, that part's copyright remained valid, and the owner of the copyright of the composition did not get a copyright on that part (Section 7).
2. Then, see 17 USC 304 for the duration of copyright. As you said, there's no way this 1970-1978 work could be out of copyright. In 1978, the work was in its first 28-year copyright term. As "works made for hire", entries are copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the initial publication (§304(a)(1)(B)(ii)), and collective works have the same term (§304(a)(1)(B)(i)). By §304(a)(1)(C), any entry that might have been copyrighted before having been incorporated into the encyclopedia also is copyrighted with that term. See also Peter Hirtle's chart.

If the last volume was indeed published in 1978, we also need to consider the current U.S. law.

3. Some definitions from 17 USC 101: An encyclopedia is a "collective work" and as such also a "compilation". The individual entries of an encyclopedia may be "works made for hire" if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
4. Then see 17 USC 201 on the ownership of copyright: for "works made for hire", the copyright vests in the employer, i.e. Juozas Kapočius (§201(b)). For entries that were not "works made for hire", the individual authors retain the copyright on the text (§201(c)), unless they had explicitly transferred any of their exclusive rights (§201(d)). Kapočius certainly has a copyright on the whole "collective work", i.e. selection and presentation of the entries (§201(c)).
5. For the copyright duration, see 17 USC 302: works made for hire are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since publication or 120 years since creation (§302(c)). Any other copyrights on the collective work or the individual articles (if not works made for hire) last until 70 years p.m.a. (§302(a)).
6. Also see 17 USC 404: a single copyright notice on the collective work is sufficient to invalidate any "innocent infringement" defense (that's the defense "I didn't know it was copyrighted because it had no © sign"...), even for single entries of the collective work. Single entries may have their own copyright notices, but that's not necessary. (And anyway, © notices are not needed anymore; copyright is automatic. Placing a © just gives the additional benefit of invalidating the "innocent infringement" defense.)

Internationally, this encyclopedia is also copyrighted as it was copyrighted when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention in 1989. And as it still is copyrighted in the U.S., it is also copyrighted in all countries that joined the Berne Convention after 1989. HTH. Lupo 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So to sum up, the first 5 volumes are copyrighted by Juozas. So if he released his rights, the whole book could be copied and distributed, right? The last volume depends on his agreemnet with writers. P.S. Encyclopedia Lituanica is a shy start :) Renata 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my reading of it, yes. Juozas Kapočius seems to be the sole copyright holder for the those volumes published and registered before 1978, so if he decides to place them in the public domain or to publish them under a free license, they'd be in the public domain or freely licensed. BTW, note the strikeout I made above on pre-1994 and Soviet stuff. I think now you're right. Lupo 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with this is that he may well have died, see [1] and [2]. In this case, his heirs would be the copyright holders. Lupo 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it appears he died about a year after having gotten the Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas on March 7, 1995: Kapočius, Juozas (October 19, 1907 – May 22, 1996) [3]. Also see [4]. Lupo 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But you are a prolific digger ;) Renata 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I saw that later, after adding my comment! Apologies, and keep up the good work ({{PD-Poland}} needs a look too!) Physchim62 (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to be sorry! Lupo 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain my comment at Template talk:PD-USSR, the Berne convention only requires that countries offer the same protection to other Berne Union works as they offer to their own nationals (with a 50 pma minimum, except for exception): there is no requirement to accord the full foreign copyright term (100 pma for Mexican works, 99 pma for works from the Côte d'Ivoire). Physchim62 (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of national treatment. Perhaps I oversimplified it in my comment... Maybe we should add a second box saying that any Russian and Soviet works copyrighted in 1995 in Russia became subject to copyright in other signatory countries of the Berne Convention in 1995, when Russia joined the Berne Convention. In 70y p.m.a.-countries, such works thus became copyrighted until 70y p.m.a.... and in 50y p.m.a.-countries, to 50 years p.m.a. And all that subject again to the rule of the shorter term, which is optional. Lupo 07:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the point of my comment is that I don't think we should try to explain the copyright position in France or the UK or Canada or elsewhere apart from the US and ... well, let's start with Russia for the CIS states, while keeping in mind that other situations might exist (Georgian copyright law, to give just one example). I have tried to bring all of this together on a new page Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights: it needs plenty of copyediting and checking, but feel free to take a look at the current version. Physchim62 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Review of my actions

Hello again, Lupo. As I was working on the WP:CP archive, I removed the entry for Suicide in the Trenches[5], reasoning that it was created before 1923, and was public domain in the U.S. regardless of British laws. I have seen this decision made many times before, and didn't think it noteworthy. However, a user strongly disapproved of my action (see User:Quadell#I said I wouldn't argue this but . . .), arguing that I should have discussed it first, or that I should have come to a different conclusion. I'd like to make sure I'm doing the right thing when I work on WP:CP. Could you tell me if you think I was correct or not? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This page has been on my watchlist since the Snodgrass issue. I just want clear up one misconception above: I believe Quadell's decision to be correct and in line with Wikipedia:Public domain. However I did not realize this till he pointed it out on talk page after my first note to him. I had read Wikipedia:Copyrights and gotten the impression that this was a grey area like it is on Wikisource. In any event you can otherwise read my comments on his talk page for my opinion how copyvio's should be handled.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, meet Birgitte; Birgitte, meet Quadell. You seem to have taken off on the wrong foot. I'd hate to see two sincere contributors I highly respect quarrell over this.

As to the question at hand: it is a gray area. On the en: Wikipedia, there is the longstanding policy to apply the 1923 cut-off date world-wide, i.e. even to foreign works. But this may not be entirely correct, see the footnote at WP:PD: maybe a 1909 cut-off date for non-U.S. works would be more appropriate (and even then only under U.S. law, but maybe only for works published in a language other than English). See also Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Works_published_in_English_1909-1922_outside_the_US or commons:Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Italian_troops_at_Isonzo_river.jpg. Maybe we should apply {{PD-US}} only to U.S. works...

In any case, republishing the poem is not appropriate here, irrespective of copyright issues. If it's not appropriate to have it at Wikisource (where Birgitte is the expert :-), so be it. Personally, I think trying to also comply with foreign legislation, and especially that of English-speaking countries, as I consider these the main target of publication of this English-language encyclopedia, is a good idea. For most cases, we'll be fine with the U.S.-centric application of U.S. law first, but remember Jimbo's statement about trying to respect foreign countries copyrights?

Wikipedia:Public domain is not policy. It's an attempt to explain copyright, and in some cases to give some guidelines. It was mostly written by me, but has been seen and edited by quite a few others and survived mostly unchanged, so I guess the description is not too far off the mark. Concerning the 1923 date, it describes current practice. Wikipedia:Copyrights is a poorly written policy. Quadell, how about resurrecting the draft work? Lupo 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I nearly forgot: Thanks for cleaning out WP:CP, Quadell! You're doing a tremenduous job over there. Birgitte certainly did not intend to attack you or your actions; she just voiced some reasonable concerns. If there's some (well-founded, whatever that means :-) disagreement over an entry, I would just re-list it under "others" and note my opinion. Someone else will probably take a look at it (even if maybe not immediately).

In this particular case, I'd just remove the poem as not being particularly encyclopedic. And then, we should figure out what to do with the remaining stub. It's linked only from talk pages... Is that peom significant in any way? Well-known at least? Can we improve the stub by explaining its significance? If neither, the poem should just be mentioned at Siegfried Sassoon and Suicide in the Trenches should redirect there. Lupo 08:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PD soviet

Kennst du [6]?. Gruß --ST ○ 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Implementation Act, 5352-1? Yes, long ago. It would have been really irresponsible of me if I had made such strong claims without being pretty damn sure that the 1993 Russian copyright law was retroactive. The formulation is unfortunately not very clear, but see Template talk:PD-USSR#A_concrete_court_case_in_the_U.S. (or commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet#Retroactivity redux): it's been recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Lupo 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the full text of 5352-1 in English is available at the very bottom of the CIPR translation of the law (PDF, 372kB). Lupo 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Danke für die Quellen und Hinweise. Wenn mich nicht der Mut verlässt, habe ich vor, einen Artikel zum sowjetischen Urheberrecht zu schreiben. --ST ○ 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too :-)!! I'm looking forward to a collaboration, but I'd suggest we still wait a bit until the dust has settled a little. I'm planning, however, to write an article Copyright in Russia, with sections on the History, Current situation, International aspects, Enforcement. I will not write Copyright law of the Russian Federation yet; I think that should be a second article covering in more detail the legislative history since 1991 (i.e., briefly covering the 1991 Fundamentals (of which it is unclear whether they ever were in force in Russia, as the USSR collapsed before they could enter in force—if you want a source for that, I can dig up one or two references, but I don't remember them off-hand right now), and then covering the 1993 law and the 1995 and 2004 modifications, maybe comparing it to the WIPO model laws (on which the modern copyright laws of many CIS states are based). In other words, Copyright in Russia should be an overview article, going back to tsarist times, but still detail the questions that have been discussed ad nauseam in the context of that template. I'm also planning to write an article (and put on wikisource the legal documents) on Films by Jove v. Berov. Lupo 06:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A propos: how about some comments on User:Lupo/Notes? (Not yet the article. Beginning to really sort out the PD-Soviet mess :-) Lupo 09:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh jeh, auf was habe ich mich da eingelassen? ;-) Ohne deine Vorarbeit würde ich mich nie an das Thema heranwagen. Ich habe zur Entspannung erst mal was über meine Heimatstadt geschrieben. --ST ○ 22:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, I'm working on the commons for finding a correct licence for images with the "PD Soviet"-licence, which cannot be accepted on de:WP. Do you think, that "PD-Russia" is a well licence for international copyright ? If so, the template:PD-Russia may not sort the images into the category "PD Soviet", because I want, that this category (included subcategories) is only used for images with the "PD-Soviet"-licence and its problems. Augiasstallputzer 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer at commons:User talk:Augiasstallputzer. Lupo 08:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on User:Lupo/Notes: however, as asked, I will make a couple of comments:

1. You don't give any weight at all to the country of first publication, which is determinable and at least as important as the nationality of the author under th Berne Convention. I don't know which criterion would be used by US courts, as 17USC104A is gloriously vague on this point, but publication seems like a valid criterion to argue about, at the very least!
2. If these notes are to form the basis for WikiGuidelines, we should have a "default case": I suggest that, if we cannot show a link to any other CIS country, Russian law should apply. This is not legally defensible, but is necessary for guidelines and should not, in practice, cause us too much risk. In virtually all cases of Soviet images, we would be able to link them to Russia, the oinly remaining question is whether there is a stronger link to another CIS state.

Images from the Baltic States fall roughly into the same arguement, at least de facto, I am still trying to get my head around the legal issues, particularly given the changes in policy since 1993... Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I'm not yet aiming at a guideline, that'll take some time. Arguing and trying to convince people that "pre-1973" is wrong has taken so much energy that I have neglected to sort out what to do after (besides "70 years p.m.a." or PD-Russia, but the true situation is more complex). It's also, as you hint at, a question of trying to find practicable rules. Re: "ignoring country of first publication": no, I'm not. There's even a column on "publisher" in the second table. But the problem is that that country doesn't exist anymore. Hence I think that for a work published somewhere in the USSR by a publisher that is today based in country Y, we'd need to apply the laws of country Y. That would also give an answer to the open question someone once asked: "what about a work published during the Soviet era in Tallin?". Answer: Apply Estonian law, and see what that gives you (taking into account the transitory provisions from Soviet law to modern Estonian law). We could discuss this further on User talk:Lupo/Notes... Lupo 12:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian simple photographs

Hello Lupo,

we could do with a clarification at the Commons on the effects of the EU Directive on Copyright Harmonisation on Italian photos that are not works. Specifically, Art. 17 seems to be the one to look at. Rtc quoted a number of rulings of Austrian and German courts on the directive's effects on the definition of a work.

Essentially, the question is if the directive indeed effectively limits photographic non-works in Italian legislation to much less than the text of Article 87 of the Italian copyright law appears to refer to, i. e. that Italian simple photos entering the PD after 20 years are only such images as accidental shots and photos that no other photographer would have taken differently, like technical reproductions, automatic mugshots or cartographic areal views.

Could you give us your take on this on Commons:Template talk:PD-Italy? Thanks! --Wikipeder 08:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer at commons:User talk:Wikipeder. Lupo 08:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems though as if you replied to another (but equally interesting) question. Thanks for taking the time, anyway.

What I am trying to find out is if the EU directives turned photographic non-works into works without the text of Article 87 actually changing. --Wikipeder 08:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. That's what I'm discussing with Rtc at commons:User talk:Lupo. I don't know the answer, but maybe you'd like to join or watch the debate. Lupo 09:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo, did you found a transitional law in the italian todays copyright? -- 80.145.57.122 10:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Concerning which transition? What are you looking for? It looks as if Italian laws are modified more often than they change governments! Lupo 10:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Swabian War

Great first entry on 1499 battle.! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (I presume you refer to Battle of Calven... or did you mean Battle of Schwaderloh? :-) Lupo 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the Calven article. As responsible for creating the Online documentation on the Schwabenkrieg (first uni-freiburg.de, now historicum.net) I would prefer if you would cite the new URLs at http://www.historicum.net/themen/schwabenkrieg/. You are citing the historicum.net archive. If I would have time in my lifetime to change the contents your weblinks would not refer to the updated version ! --Historiograf 21:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I know :-) (Both: that you are responsible, and also that I'm linking to the archive.) Where is the excerpt from Pirckheimer on the new site?? If you can give me a direct link, I'll update it, but I can't find it! (Maybe I'm just blind...) BTW, did you see Swabian War? Or are you familiar with the Swiss peasant war of 1653? If you see any possibilities for improvements, go ahead! Lupo 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I regret I have no time for such improvements. You are right - I will mail to historicum.net that the Sources section isn't complete. --Historiograf 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a very bad new CMS there. You have to reload the pages to see the "Weitere" and the full pages. The new (permanent ha, ha) URL is http://www.historicum.net/no_cache/persistent/artikel/1204/ --Historiograf 01:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I also fixed a few other outdated references to historicum.net. Lupo 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

PD-Soviet (2nd)

1st

Hallo, do you know, if there is copyright on images from:

1. Soviet spacecraft ?
2. Soviet military ?
3. Soviet stamps ?

Are images PD, when they are made by the former Soviet state, or which licence-tag shoud I use ?

2nd

If nobody knows, who has made an image, can I simply calculate years from the date of the image ? 50 or 70 years ?

(Please don't answer with complex text, I 've problems to understand juristic english sentences ;-(

With greetings, Augiasstallputzer 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nein, Werke, bei denen der Staat das Urheberecht innehatte, sind nicht einfach so PD. Das trifft nur auf die USA zu. In Russland gibt es keine entsprechende Regelung. Hier meine Meinung zu den von Dir erwähnten konkreten Fällen:

1. Spacecraft: entweder war der Inhaber des Urheberrechts der Staat oder eine staatliche Institution. Damit ging das Urheberrecht 1991 wahrscheinlich an den Russischen Staat bzw. irgendeine andere juristische Person in Russland über. Damit gilt: publiziert vor 1954 ist PD in RU und in der EU; PD in den USA falls vor 1946 publiziert. → PD-Russia kann verwendet werden.
2. Militär: falls offizielle Photos, wie Spacecraft. Ebenfalls Agenturphotos (TASS, Sovinformbüro (heute RIA Novosti)). Fotos mit bekanntem Urheber: unklar, da wir nicht wissen, ob der Fotograf das Urheberrecht innehatte (falls ja: PD in Russland, falls Fotograf vor 1954 starb und das Foto vor 1954 publiziert wurde. EU gleich; U.S. gilt wieder 1946). Wenn wir annehmen, dass der Staat prinzipiell über die Verbreitung solcher Fotos bestimmte (und somit mindestens de facto einen wichtigen Teil des Urheberrechtes wahrnahm oder gar innehatte), gilt das gleiche wie bei Spacecraft. Ich würde mich also ebenfalls an PD-Russia halten und alle Bilder, die vor 1954 veröffentlicht wurden, als PD-Russia klassieren.
3. Stamps: use PD-RU-exempt. Ich weiss zwar nicht, ob das 100% korrekt ist, aber es ist sicher vertretbar. Allzuviele Briefmarken dürfte es sowieso nicht haben; falls wir später herausfinden, dass Briefmarken nicht als "offizielle Symbole" oder "offizielle Publikationen" gelten, können wir das immer noch korrigieren.
4. Unbekannte Urheberschaft: ich würde PD-Russia verwenden, d.h. PD falls vor 1954 erstmals veröffentlicht (EU gleich, U.S. vor 1946).

Im Allgemeinen dürfte es für uns schwierig sein, zu wissen, wann etwas erstmals veröffentlicht wurde. Im Zweifelsfall würde ich tatsächlich vom Enstehungsjahr eines Photos ausgehen.

Bilder ohne source-Angaben würde ich, falls sie unter PD-Russia fallen, als PD-Russia und {{subst:nsd}} markieren.

HTH, Lupo 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Tut mir leid, dass ich beim Aufräumen nicht mithelfen kann, aber wenn ich das machte, würden gewisse unserer Kollegen aus Russland wohl Zeter und Mordio schreien :-( Lupo 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Danke für die Infos. Bleibt noch eine Frage übrig: Welche russische Stelle kann man fragen, um evtl. eine PD-Lizenz vom Copyright-Inhaber staatlicher Bilder zu bekommen? Ich kann mir das bei den vielen nicht druckfähigen und damit kaum gewerblich nutzbaren Bilder mit nur ca. 300 px Breite vorstellen. Augiasstallputzer 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Aber wie soll das gehen: eine PD-Lizenz für kleine Bildchen von ansonsten urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken? Wären die Web-Bilder denn keine "derivative works"? Lupo 12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question, needs interpretation.

See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#LOOK Magazine Photograph Collection. I think these images are GFDL-compatible, but I'd like a second opinion. Andrew Levine 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One more copyright question

Are pre-1964 American television commercials with no copyright notice displayed in the ad considered to be public domain? (Ignoring the musical score, which might have been copyrighted separately, as all I'm interested in is screenshots.) Andrew Levine 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, sorry. Lupo 17:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling off

I am ready to call it off. but it is really unfortunate that a wiki administrator is behaving like this. Pls see how he removed my comments (saying that he is removing a trolling) from his talk page when i asked him to stop.-Bharatveer 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He's free to do that on his talk page. He's also free to remove personal attacks ("chambers"...). It appears he isn't talking to you, which is his right. I suggest you do the same. Now let's write a decent article and leave him alone. Lupo 09:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A Message from Oddmartian

Hey, Lupo. I saw your message. You might be right about my candidatcy(or however the heck you spell that word). I'm fairly new to Wikipedia; however, if I continue editing and contributing at the rate I am, I might stand a better chance later.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Also, have a look at my Dictionary Tag idea in the Village Pump and tell me what you think on my Talk Page. --Oddmartian 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)